Giles v. Bennett

• Decision Date: 25 November 1929
• Docket Number: 149
• Citation: 148 A. 90,298 Pa. 158
• Parties: Giles, Appellant, v. Bennett et al
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

148 A. 90

298 Pa. 158

Giles, Appellant, v. Bennett et al

No. 149

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

November 25, 1929

Argued October 3, 1929

Appeal, No. 149, March T., 1929, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1925, No. 564, for defendant n.o.v., in case of Ola Giles v. Joseph Bennett and William F Ryan. Reversed.

Trespass for death of plaintiff's husband. Before MARSHALL, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict for plaintiff. Judgment for defendant n.o.v.

Error assigned was judgment for defendant n.o.v., quoting record.

Under all the circumstances, the case was for the jury. The judgment is reversed, and the motion for a new trial reinstated in order that defendant's rights may be fully considered and protected, and, if a new trial is not granted then judgment is directed to be entered on the verdict.

C. James Tannehill, with him U. G. Vogan, for appellant. -- The court was not justified, under the evidence, in determining as a matter of law, that deceased was negligent; and that the entering of judgment non obstante veredicto was, therefore, error: Cronmuller v. Even. Tel., 232 Pa. 14; Patterson v. Ry., 210 Pa. 47; Hanna v. Ry., 213 Pa. 157; Kohler v. R.R., 135 Pa. 346; Allen v. Willars, 57 Pa. 374; Ely v. Ry., 158 Pa. 233; Glase v. Phila., 169 Pa. 488; Danko v. Rys., 230 Pa. 295.

O. K. Eaton, for appellee. -- The case is for the jury: Fish v. Stulb, 274 Pa. 87; Kauffman v. Nelson, 225 Pa. 174; Joyce v. Smith, 269 Pa. 439; Schmidt v. Ry., 224 Pa. 205.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE FRAZER:

This action was originally brought by plaintiff against Joseph Bennett and William F. Ryan to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's husband as a result of being struck by a truck owned by Ryan and driven by Bennett. At the trial a nonsuit was taken as to Bennett and the case proceeded against Ryan. A verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiff. Judgment was subsequently entered for defendant non obstante veredicto and this appeal followed.

The accident occurred on Second Avenue in the City of Pittsburgh, which is a main thoroughfare running east and west. Deceased was employed at a manufacturing plant situated along the south side of that avenue. There is a double track street car line on the street and opposite the entrance to the mill is a regular stopping place for trolley cars. Deceased was a passenger on a westbound car running on the north track headed toward the business part of the city. The car stopped opposite the entrance to the mill at which deceased was employed, which is the customary place, and deceased alighted and immediately proceeded to pass around in front of the car to cross the street. Both parties concede this was the proper place to cross and was regularly used for that purpose by employees of the mill. The testimony on behalf of plaintiff is that after deceased passed the front of the car he crossed the space between the east- and westbound tracks, referred to as the "dummy," and as he stepped on the eastbound trolley track, was struck by defendant's truck which was running westward and in the act of passing on the left side of the trolley car. A bystander seeing the truck approaching shouted a warning to deceased and the latter immediately jumped or took a step forward in an apparent endeavor to reach the opposite side of the street and avoid the truck; his effort however to prevent the contact was unsuccessful. There is evidence from which the jury could infer that the truck was running at a high rate of speed and without adequate warning of its approach; accordingly the question of negligence on the part of the driver was properly for the jury and need not be considered here. The sole question is whether deceased was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to look for approaching vehicles before attempting to cross the street.

There was no statute or rule of law in existence at the time this accident happened forbidding drivers of vehicles passing to the left of standing trolley cars. It also appears from the testimony that at the point where the accident occurred there was a space not exceeding seven or eight feet clearance between the wall on the north side of the street and the overhang of trolley cars passing along the north- or westbound track, and that because of this narrow space it was the general custom of drivers of vehicles to pass to the left instead of the right of westbound cars. While this fact would have bearing mainly on the question of negligence of the driver of the truck, it is also material under the circumstances here involved on the question of contributory negligence of deceased as affecting his duty to look for the approach of vehicles from the east after having passed around in front of the standing trolley and before starting to cross to the sidewalk. Several of plaintiff's witnesses testified that deceased, after passing in front of the trolley car, looked to the right or westward. In absence of evidence to the contrary it must be presumed he performed his full duty to take due precaution for his own safety and looked also to the left. The court below, in entering judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto, held in effect that the evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption of due care and to justify the court in saying as matter of law that deceased failed to look to the left before entering on the track. The correctness of this conclusion depends upon whether the evidence of the witnesses as to the actions of deceased covered the entire period of time which elapsed from the moment he stepped from in front of the trolley car to the time he was struck. One of plaintiff's witnesses testified that when he saw deceased start to cross the street in the direction of the witness, deceased was looking "down the street towards the city," and on seeing the truck approach, the witness called to deceased to "look out," whereupon the latter "kind of made a jump out of the road" and that "it all happened in an instant." The witness stated that at the time deceased jumped he was "about in front of the truck." This witness did not say how long he observed deceased, but he testified that when he heard the noise of the approaching truck he looked and saw deceased crossing the street, at which time, as stated above, the latter was "looking down the street towards the city." He also stated that when he first saw deceased the latter had at the time passed the left line of the street car. Another witness testified that deceased "got off the front end and walked around the front end of the street car and looked in towards the city...